The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 aims at dealing with the legacy of the past relating to the Troubles in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1998, with the purpose of bringing to an end the legal proceedings while moving towards reconciliation. The Act creates new bodies to deal with the legacy of the past in pursuance of reconciliation but does not provide a definition of what reconciliation is or how to achieve it. We will consider the new bodies created by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, the definition of what reconciliation is and the process for achieving reconciliation in the context of a democratic society.
- The new bodies created by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
With a view to achieving reconciliation, the act creates new bodies with different functions: (a) the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and (b) the Designated Person.
- The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR)
The Act establishes the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), whose principal objective is to promote reconciliation while exercising its functions, mainly reviewing Troubles-related deaths and other harmful conduct that led to people being physically and psychologically injured. The ICRIR is empowered to carry out three different types of investigations: Family Answer Investigations to provide answers to questions asked by family members, Liability Focussed Investigations to prosecute perpetrators of crimes committed, and Culpability Focussed Investigations to identify perpetrators without prosecution.
- A designated person to deal with the memorialisation strategy:
The Act provides that the Secretary of State may consult with relevant organisations that have expertise in carrying out, promoting or otherwise facilitating activities that are intended to encourage reconciliation or anti-sectarianism, regarding the designation of a person who will be appointed to (1) determine a memorialisation strategy and to (2) develop a Troubles-related work programme.
The memorialisation strategy
A designated person will carry out a study of relevant memorialisation activities. The process by which the study will be carried out and the recommendations made must consider how relevant memorialisation activities currently, or in the future, will promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
The Troubles-related work programme
The designated person must develop a Troubles-related work programme including: oral history, a memorialisation strategy and academic research. When carrying out the Troubles-related work program the designated person must do it in a way that promotes reconciliation.
The Definition of reconciliation and its process
There is a serious lacuna in the act, which is the absence of a definition of what ‘reconciliation’ is, although this is the main objective to be pursued and promoted by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and the Designated Person dealing with the legacy of the past.
Broadly speaking, the term “reconcile” is defined as follows: “to re-establish friendly relations; to bring to agreement, to make compatible; to resolve”, or elaborating a little further, to “harmonise (conflicting beliefs etc.); bring back into friendship or cause to accept (an unpleasant situation)”. The need for reconciliation therefore, presupposes that the respective relationship has broken down at some point in the past.
While at one end of the scale, it may be the case that a relationship has broken down due to a simple misunderstanding on the part of one, or more of the parties involved, whereupon an honest discussion will go some way to re-establishing friendly relations; at the other end of the scale, it is more often the case that relationships have broken down as the result of wrongdoing, again on the part of one or more parties. Reconciliation in this situation therefore becomes more complicated in that there may very well be a need for the wrongdoer(s) to recognise the offence and to commit to not reoffending, before reconciliation is achieved.
In a democratic society acts of terrorism are never justified. The Troubles, which is an euphemism for a campaign of terror, started in Northern Ireland in 1969. At the time, the United Kingdom had subscribed to the European Convention on Human Rights and had given any individual the right to lodge a petition with the European Court of Human Rights for alleged violation(s) of his/her human rights by the United Kingdom government. In case there had been any serious and sustained violations of human rights there was always a legal remedy available to seek redress and there was no justification for engaging in terrorism because of alleged violations of human rights or discrimination.
Regardless of allegations of religious discrimination, the real reason for waging a campaign of terrorism was to achieve a united Ireland by way of the integration of Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland. Terrorist violence was intended to overthrow democracy. Since WWII the principle constantly applied was that of auto-determination. According to this principle any people residing on a particular territory could choose to gain independence or have their country integrated into the territory of another State if the majority consented to this. Therefore, a united Ireland could only be achieved by way of consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland and them alone. Since there has never been, at any time from partition in 1921, a majority of the people of Northern Ireland willing to join the Republic of Ireland, a united Ireland was not achievable. Terrorism could not overcome democracy or the principle of consent and was never justified in attempting to achieve a political aim against the will of the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.
It is in this context that the definition of what reconciliation is can be provided on the basis of the Judeo-Christian principles that constitute the foundation of Northern Ireland society.
Those who were involved in terrorism must accept that orchestrated violence that resulted in heinous murders and serious injuries perpetrated against innocent civilians and members of the security forces was totally wrong and unjustified. This is required to satisfy the actual desire for a reconciled relationship in that, for reconciliation to be achievable there must be a willingness on the part of all parties to achieve that goal. When we further bear in mind that in Northern Ireland today, neither of the two opposing communities, Irish Nationalists or Northern Ireland Unionists, are experiencing any significant impoverishment, disadvantage, or threat of violence, from each other, it becomes apparent that it is only the attitude to terrorist violence that creates the barrier. Remove that barrier, and there is every possibility that reconciliation can take place, even though some, in the short term at least, may have to accept what they now perceive to be “an unpleasant situation”, but which in the long term can open the door to a brighter future free from the baggage of the past.
Then what would this remorse, or to use a Judeo/Christian term, “repentance” actually entail? So often today repentance is downplayed with the result that it amounts to little more than an apology. Christian theologian and author John MacArthur highlights the important distinction: “Genuine repentance always involves a confession of wrongdoing and a willingness to make things right. [Whereas] An apology often takes the form of an excuse”. A genuine desire for reconciliation therefore, will first and foremost be evident by virtue of the fact that wrongdoers avoid making excuses, acknowledge the wrong of terrorism and are first reconciled with the principle of democracy which implies the use of democratic means to seek redress for alleged violations of human rights and for achieving a political end whatever it is, such as a united Ireland.
Christian counsellor Ken Sande produces a comprehensive seven-point guide called the Seven A’s, which provide a process for genuine repentance leading to reconciliation. Very briefly, the guidelines come under the following headings:
- Address Everyone Involved:
Generally speaking, the sin should be confessed to everyone who has been affected by the wrongdoing.
- Avoid If, But, and Maybe:
Confession is not really confession if the desire is to shift the blame onto others, or if an attempt is made to minimise or excuse guilt. The most common way this takes place is when someone says, “I’m sorry if I’ve done something to offend.” The word “if” nullifies any confession, as it infers that you do not know whether or not you did anything wrong at all.
- Admit Specifically:
The more detailed and specific one is when making a confession, the more likely the response will be positive. Specific confessions help convince others that you are genuinely facing up to what you have done.
- Acknowledge the Hurt:
If, by confessing, the true desire is for a positive response, make a point of acknowledging remorse and sorrow for the hurt you have caused. It is important to show that you have genuine empathy for the other person’s feelings as a consequence of your actions.
- Accept the Consequences:
Accepting any and all consequences for your actions is another way of demonstrating the genuineness of your confession.
- Alter Your Behaviour:
Sincere repentance is also marked by a desire to change your behaviour in the future and in the context of Northern Ireland there should also be a commitment never to reoffend by re-engaging in acts of terrorism.
- Ask for Forgiveness (and Allow Time):
This should also be accompanied in the context of what happened during the Troubles with the offer of an appropriate form of reparation.
Ken Sande concludes that when we go to confess a wrong, we should always bear in mind that we are serving the other person and not simply confessing to gain comfort for oneself.
It should also be made mention of the specific nature and context of the terrorist campaign and its wider impact. John MacArthur highlights this important point: “The arena of the confession should be as large as the audience of the original offence. Public transgressions call for public confession.” Again, in light of the fact that the Northern Ireland conflict was played out in front of the world’s media, and in many instances, deliberately so, it is only fitting and proper that any subsequent repentance for the crimes committed during that same conflict should address that same audience, not least with a view to stemming the flow of propaganda that is deliberately used to keep old animosities alive.
In the context of unjustified violent conflict, lasting reconciliation will only be achieved when the wrongs committed are recognised for what they were. Of course, any long-term political and constitutional aspirations can continue to be pursued by those who wish to see a united Ireland by way of democratic means while promoting and maintaining a reconciled society.